God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

God does not exist. Prove me wrong.
in Philosophy

By RS_masterRS_master 23 Pts
Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 31 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"  (Romans 8:24)

    hope
    ἐλπίδι (elpidi)
    Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
    Strong's Greek 1680:  Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.

    God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.
    Zombieguy1987
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 28 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    That's not hard. 

    Short answer, Jesus Christ.

    Ling answer:

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.

    Conclusion of summary of findings:

    Abnormal genetic characteristics exist within the tested sample and Gene sequence tested. Recurrent testing produced consistent results in each re-test, to ensure accuracy of each test result. Due to the nature of the samples tested, the subject having half the total amount of the chromosomes determined:

    1.)a chrmosomal difference between known subjects born of sexual reproduction 

    As subject had only twenty-four of the total fourty-six chrmosomes of a person who had a natural birth.

    As a result,

    2.) the subject is, based on the genetic characteristics of the specimen examined and the repetitive tests performed to have been born of a virgin.

    Lab test performed by thaler

    Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from females to their offspring.

    As a result, animal species that pass on mitochondrial DNA leave generic markers.

    Human beings also leave generic markers.

    If reproduction determines how genetic information is passed on , then any animal life responsible for evolution would be present in mitochondrial DNA

    Except,

    The lab test determined animal and human life to have the same genetic day or origin

    2. That Adams genological record supports the genetic test results found in the lab report.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    edited 12:07AM Winning Argument ✓
    @ZeusAres42

    Richard Dawkins, can't take his anti religious opinion back can he?

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following:

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs from Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion on Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "


    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    @ZeusAres42


    "Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy? 

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter. 

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to.  

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours. "

    I'm not being defensive, I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?

    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    You have effectively laid the burden of proof on yourself by making the affirmative claim it’s up to you to prove there is no god. The opposite is also true when a believer claims there is a god the burden lies squarely with him /her to prove the veracity of the statement 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42RS_master

  • Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.

    Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemically neutral answer?


    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    Absolute nonsense and has been  debunked several times 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    edited July 15
    @ZeusAres42

    "Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemic-ally neutral answer?"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o2qUHhVJFk

    So basically what you're implying, in a sense, because you took the time, to apparently want to educate me, on the below? 
     

    "The Vocabulary of Science:

    First Steps to Science Literacy" This video course was originally produced as a paid course for Udemy and my Critical Thinker Academy website. "


    Thank you for teaching me, in regards to the vocabulary of science? 

    IE Science Literacy right? 

    God exists, Jesus exists, Religious buildings around the globe exists, millions of peaceful religious individuals around the globe exists, science exists, the internet exists, the anti religious individuals exists, just like the words vocabulary, and literacy exist? 

  • Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy?

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter.

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to. 

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • The CLIA is the only accredited science bureau for human biological testing and genetic researchr so Dee again your a moron , and to say  David S. Thaler who currently works at the Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences, University of Basel. Has been debunked severalstimes when the testtcame outoabout 14 days agoadetermines youveyolosl credibility as a completecmoron. Thaler does research in and teaches Genetics and Microbiology.
    Current institution
    University of Basel | UNIBAS
    Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences
    Current position
    Skills and Expertise
    PCRGeneticsMutationMicrobial IsolationAntimicrobial ResistanceEscherichia ColiMicrobial GeneticsRecombination

    Hes an atheist . When atheists disagree with other atheists. The problem is now your disagreeing with evidence. That means your not scientific which means your dumb. You lack a normal level of intelligence.
  • I want Dee to articulate how a lab test that came out recently has been debunked when it was added to the scientific journal.

    I want that to be explaination.
    RS_master
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    You claimed Doofus........

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as 

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.


    I’m still waiting on your proof of your claim  Doofus
  • DeeDee 432 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    All your piece does is name some scientist who says nothing about your Jesus claim you idiot 
    RS_master
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch